Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes of Passenger Cars

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 584-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Brumbelow ◽  
Eric R. Teoh
2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Brumbelow ◽  
Eric R. Teoh ◽  
David S. Zuby ◽  
Anne T. McCartt
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Ernst Tomasch ◽  
Simon Franz Heindl ◽  
Gregor Gstrein ◽  
Wolfgang Sinz ◽  
Hermann Steffan

Tunnel portals and tunnel lay-bys are hazardous spots for road users. Different infrastructure safety measures are in use, but the protection level is not known. In this study the following safety measures for reducing the injury risk are investigated: angular positioned 4 m and 8 m concrete barrier, crash cushion Alpina F1-50 and Alpina <prototype> crash cushion. A passenger car equipped with a data acquisition unit is accelerated to 100 km/h and impacts the safety measure. The assessment of the latter is based on the EN 1317 criteria, specifically the Acceleration Severity Index (ASI), Theoretical Head Impact Velocity (THIV). Further assessment criteria are related to intrusions into the passenger compartment and post-crash motion. The best result in terms of ASI and THIV was achieved by the 8 m (ASI: 1.6, THIV: 30 km/h) concrete barrier. The crash cushion Alpina <prototype> showed good results for the ASI (1.8) but the THIV (57 km/h) was less satisfactory, while the angular positioned 4 m concrete barrier (ASI: 2.9, THIV: 53 km/h) and the crash cushion Alpina F1-50 (ASI: 3.3, THIV: 74 km/h) performed worst. Even though some of the measures showed good results, no protection measure tested currently complies with all the assessment criteria used.


Author(s):  
Chandrashekhar K. Thorbole ◽  
Stephen A. Batzer ◽  
David A. Renfroe

Roof intrusion is a major cause of neck injury to belted occupants during rollover accidents. The correlation of reduced head room with increased injury risk has been demonstrated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and others such as the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS). The current FMVSS 216 standard requires the vehicle roof, when loaded with a platen of prescribed geometry and application vector, to resist 1.5 times the vehicle empty weight before deforming 127mm. This standard was developed to ensure a modest level of safety of the vehicle in rollover. This paper demonstrates the relation between roof intrusions, available head room and belt pretension on occupant neck loads. A validated finite element model of a 2001 Ford Taurus is used to conduct an inverted drop simulation. The vehicle’s roof impacts an ideally rigid surface with 5 deg of roll and 10 deg of pitch. A 95th percentile Hybrid III ATD (Anthropomorphic Test Device) is used to simulate a large occupant. The simulations are conducted both for a production roof and a modified stiffer, stronger roof. The production roof is modified by addition of extra material in the B-pillars and A-pillars to enhance strength. A seatbelt pretensioner is also modeled to demonstrate the effectiveness of belt pretension in attenuating neck loads. This study demonstrates the inadequate performance of the subject production roof in preventing neck injury. The stronger roof in association with the belt pretensioner reduces the magnitude of the neck loads sufficiently to prevent injury. This study indicates that strong, non-deforming roofs along with belt pretension diminishes neck injury.


Author(s):  
Kristine J. Severson ◽  
Daniel P. Parent

As part of an ongoing passenger rail crashworthiness effort, a full-scale impact test of a train with crash energy management (CEM) passenger cars was conducted on March 23, 2006. In this test, a train made up of a CEM cab car, four CEM coach cars, and a locomotive impacted a stationary train of similar mass at 30.8 mph. This test included five occupant experiments on the cab car and the first coach car to evaluate occupant injury risk and seat/table performance during the collision using anthropomorphic devices (ATDs). Three occupant protection strategies were evaluated in these occupant experiments. Forward-facing intercity seats were modified to reduce the high head injury risk observed in a previous test. Prototype commuter seats, included in both forward-facing and rear-facing orientations, were designed to mitigate the consequences of higher decelerations in the lead two CEM cars. Improved workstation tables, tested with two different advanced ATDs, were designed to compartmentalize the occupants and reduce the upper abdominal injury risk to the occupants. Similar experiments were also conducted on the two-car impact test of CEM equipment [1]. The experiments described in this paper were conducted to evaluate the level of occupant protection provided by seats and tables that were specifically designed to improve crashworthiness. Pre-test analyses indicated that the occupant environment would be more severe for the CEM test than for the comparable test of conventional equipment. The environment in the leading cab car was predicted to be similar to a 12g, 250 millisecond triangular crash pulse. The environment in the first coach was predicted to be comparable to an 8g, 250 millisecond crash pulse. To aid the design of the occupant experiments, occupant response models were developed for each of the occupant experiments using MADYMO. These models were developed for the previous two-car CEM full-scale test and adapted to the newly designed commuter seats and tables. Predictions of the occupant response during the CEM train-to-train test were developed before the test. The models were subsequently fine-tuned to better agree with the test data, so that many different collision scenarios may be simulated. Most of the test results were similar to the pre-test predictions. The modified intercity seats successfully compartmentalized the occupants. The risk of both head and neck injury, however, were above the respective injury threshold values. In the forward-facing commuter seat experiment the impacted seat experienced a partial failure of the seat pedestal attachment, resulting in loss of compartmentalization. The attachment failures occurred because the seats weren't fabricated as designed. However, the occupants were still compartmentalized, and the injury criteria were within survivable levels. The rear-facing commuter seat experiment experienced a more significant failure of the seat pedestal attachment, resulting in a loss of compartmentalization. The attachment failures likely occurred because the seats were not fabricated as designed and the collision was slightly more severe than predicted. To assure that this failure mode is prevented in the future, a more robust attachment is currently being developed. It will be tested quasi-statically and dynamically to demonstrate its effectiveness. The improved workstation tables successfully compartmentalized the occupants while limiting the injury risk to acceptable levels.


2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Syson

Abstract Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that injuries and fatalities in rollover continue to be a serious problem out of proportion with the relative frequency of such incidents. (Summers, 1997) On average, 7,797 annual rollover involved fatalities were reported by the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), between 1988 and 1994. There were also between 43,000 and 58,000 annual rollover involved incapacitating injuries between 1988 and 1994, as reported by NASS GES. Approximately 16 percent of serious injuries to passenger car occupants and 42 percent of serious injuries to light truck occupants occurred in vehicles that rolled over. Light trucks, including vans, experienced the highest rollover involvement rate, 25.9 percent, compared to 15.3 percent for passenger cars.


Author(s):  
Brian Herbst ◽  
Steve Meyer ◽  
Steve Forrest ◽  
Steve Syson ◽  
Anthony Sances ◽  
...  

Various tests are used to evaluate the roof strength of production vehicles. Dynamic rollover tests have been conducted as part of FMVSS 208 and static evaluation using FMVSS 216. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating methods to upgrade FMVSS 216 roof crush resistance to reduce injuries and fatalities in passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, and multipurpose passenger vehicles from roof intrusion in rollover crashes (1). Roof crush intrusion is estimated to occur and potentially contribute to about 26 percent of serious or fatal injuries. Motor vehicle rollovers have been a concern for more that 30 years because they carry a very high risk of occupant death or risk compared to other types of crashes (2).


Author(s):  
Jason J. Sigel ◽  
Jack Bish ◽  
Terence Honikman ◽  
Donald Friedman ◽  
Carl E. Nash

We have developed and used a repeatable roof strength survey tool to assess the force resistance characteristics of over 50 passenger car, SUV, pickup, and van roofs. In a rollover, the initial roof-to-ground contact typically fractures and/or separates the vehicle’s bonded windshield. Subsequent trailing-side roof-to-ground impacts apply lateral forces to the roof and its support pillars. In 1971 the National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB) recognized this rollover sequence and proposed a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that tested both sides of the roof in sequence. Our repeatable roof strength survey tool uses a hydraulic cylinder to pull the upper A-pillar, roof rail, windshield header intersection toward the rear of the opposite front door sill imitating the proposed 1971 test, but at a more realistic roll angle. It is used first on one side of the vehicle with the windshield intact before being repositioned on the other side after the fractured and separated windshield is removed and the test repeated. Tests on three vehicles of the same make, model, and model year have validated the repeatability of the test and protocol. Results from all the vehicles demonstrate that in the first side test, the strength of the roof is typically about half the strength recorded in a typical FMVSS 216 test, a further decrease in force resistance occurs after the windshield has failed, and similar elastic restoration of the deformed structure occurs on both sides.


1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Welch

Abstract Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) have become an important component of disability evaluation during the past 10 years to assess an individual's ability to perform the essential or specific functions of a job, both preplacement and during rehabilitation. Evaluating both job performance and physical ability is a complex assessment, and some practitioners are not yet certain that an FCE can achieve these goals. An FCE is useful only if it predicts job performance, and factors that should be assessed include overall performance; consistency of performance across similar areas of the FCE; consistency between observed behaviors during the FCE and limitations or abilities reported by the worker; objective changes (eg, blood pressure and pulse) that are appropriate relative to performance; external factors (illness, lack of sleep, or medication); and a coefficient of variation that can be measured and assessed. FCEs can identify specific movement patterns or weaknesses; measure improvement during rehabilitation; identify a specific limitation that is amenable to accommodation; and identify a worker who appears to be providing a submaximal effort. FCEs are less reliable at predicting injury risk; they cannot tell us much about endurance over a time period longer than the time required for the FCE; and the FCE may measure simple muscular functions when the job requires more complex ones.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan T. Karazsia ◽  
Keri J. Brown Kirschman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document